Dismissed

Rafiq Khan Salawat Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Jun 2014WP/4765/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition against the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner sought correction of the date of birth in his service record, asserting illiteracy and conflicting documents. The Court held that the Tribunal had considered all aspects and reached a plausible conclusion, noting the petitioner has since retired.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Rafiq Khan Salawat Khan Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp 4765.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4765 OF 2014

¶4

Rafiq Khan Salawat Khan .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri S. R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. S. Tope, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2014.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. The petitioner filed original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking correction of the date of birth in the service record. Mr. Kolhare, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioner is illiterate and has not attended the school. However, it is wrongly mentioned in the seniority list that the petitioner has passed S.S.C. The medical certificate issued by the Resident Medical Officer, Hingoli discloses the age of the petitioner as 50 years. The petitioner is illiterate person and pursuant to the medical certificate, the Municipal Council has issued birth certificate referring the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.03.1963. The Tribunal while

¶11

2 wp 4765.14

¶12

passing the impugned judgment has not considered said aspects. The petitioner is appointed in the year 1985. Initially he worked as daily rated employee. The seniority list was published in the year 2002 and the petitioner was made regular in the year 2012 and at that time the petitioner noticed the said discrepancy and applied for correction of date of birth in the service record. The petitioner is seeking correction of his date of birth and is not challenging any seniority list.

¶13

Mr. Tope, the learned A. G. P. submits that, the Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter.

¶14

Heard Mr. Kolhare, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tope, the learned A. G. P. for the respondents.

¶15

The Tribunal has observed that, the seniority list was published in the year 2002 in which the date of birth of the petitioner was specifically stated as 05.05.1953. Since to the said seniority list the petitioner never raised any objection to the same. The petitioner states that, he is illiterate, however, the said seniority list states that, the petitioner is 10th standard pass. There is word against word.

¶16

The only evidence which is sought to be relied by the petitioner is that, a medical certificate issued by the Medical

¶17

3 wp 4765.14

¶18

Officer with regard to the age of the petitioner that is also approximate. The birth certificate issued by the Municipal Council is on the basis of said medical certificate and that too has been issued on 23.11.2012 and the said date of birth is registered for the first time on 13.12.2012. No explanation is coming forth from the petitioner for such delay. Apart from this, there is no other evidence to substantiate the case of the petitioner. The Tribunal while passing impugned judgment has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and has arrived at plausible conclusion. During the pendency of the original application, the petitioner has also stood retired from service. In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

[ A. M. BADAR, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶20

bsb/June 14

Rafiq Khan Salawat Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafiq Khan Salawat Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Babulal Mangrule Vs Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare and Another

Yashwant Govinda Mahajan Vs the University Grants Commission and Anr.

Shaikh Baba Faijjoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhairyasheel Uttamrao Deore Vs the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon and Ors.

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Mannu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maruti Nivrutti Karle Vs State of Mah and Anr.